As the meeting ended and we were walking out of the room, I thanked Trump for taking my question. He turned to me and said, “I really hope I answered your question,” and added casually with a smile, “Beautiful.” I was stunned. I didn’t say thank you, and I don’t think I smiled. He then walked out to meet with my Post colleagues briefly before heading to the elevator. I stayed in the conference room for a few minutes as it sunk in that the potential GOP nominee for president thought it was okay to comment on my appearance. Did he just say that?

The first thing I need to know is, what was Attiah's response to his "I really hope I answered your question"? If she said "yes, thanks" or nodded or gave any kind of positive response, then "beautiful" would tend to mean "Great" as in I'm glad you're satisfied with my answer.

It's at least ambiguous. I can understand the psychology of a woman wondering if she was just called beautiful, but this was a very particular woman, a reporter who seems eager to hurt Donald Trump. She stayed in the conference room thinking... exactly what? That she could immediately tweet out "I got hit on today by Donald Trump."

You know, "hit on" goes way beyond getting called "beautiful." Even if we were to assume she's correct and Donald Trump was pushing the social norms and giving a woman a personal compliment in the workplace, it's a big step from there to "hit on." Speaking of social norms... when is it okay to say that another woman's husband is "hitting on" you? Whenever he tells you you're really pretty? If a woman told people my husband "hit on" her and it turned out he'd just said, commenting on her appearance, "beautiful," I'd regard her as delusional or dangerous or both.

Here's the next paragraph in Attiah's column:

Planning out how to question Trump in a way that was illuminating was like planning for asymmetrical warfare against an opponent who doesn’t follow the same rules as you do. Who doesn’t believe in rules. Who thinks that rules won’t help make America great again....

But what rules are you following?!

I'm looking at the transcript of the whole discussion with WaPo's editorial board, and it's interesting that Trump does make a comment — an unambiguous comment — about personal appearance. It's directed at the whole group:

TRUMP: I’ll tell you one thing, this is a very good looking group of people here. Could I just go around so I know who the hell I’m talking to?

So, yeah, maybe he does have a way of disarming people — or trying to — by suddenly making a surprising and positive remark about physical appearance. He also threw in "the hell." It's an exuberant, casual style of speech.*

Should he not be talking like that? Well, he would not be the front-runner if he hadn't plunged ahead, talking in his unique, entertaining way. Reporters are only jumping on what they can call mistakes because he's been doing so well.

And each little dust-up like this "beautiful" gets conversation going on all sides, and it's hard to predict or watch what's going on in other people's minds. Who knows how many women smile on the man who is generous with the compliments and how many men rankle at what might seem like oversensitive "feminist" sulking over a simple, perfectly nice compliment?
It was not long after the "very good looking" comment, that Attiah was invited (by the editorial page editor) to ask her question. It went like this:

ATTIAH: Uh, yeah, I mean speaking again of the system of what a lot of people would say are some of the uglier components of your campaign; a lot of people have said you’ve been running a very divisive campaign as far as racial divides, you’ve noted you know your comments about Muslims, about Mexicans, immigrants and such. You have information that the country is becoming browner, is becoming younger, is becoming blacker. What in your vision of president, in your presidency, how would you bridge these divides and how will you address a– how are you going to run on a message of inclusion of all Americans?

Trump begins by attacking the premise of a question a question she didn't ask:

TRUMP: Well, first of all, if you look at some polls that have come out, I’m doing very well with African Americans. I’m doing, actually if you look at the polls, a lot of the polls that came out, in the, um, what do they call it? Exit polls, like from Nevada and other places, I’m doing very well with Hispanics.

She asked how he could get out a "message of inclusion," not whether some people in these groups were voting for him. But she accepts the slight shift in focus and interrupts to say that "some of the polls are saying you’re doing [in the] negatives." He asserts that those polls include "illegals." Among Hispanic "people that are legally living here," and "people leaving voting booths and all, I’m doing very well with them."

He seems about to get on to the inclusiveness theme...

I want to be inclusive, but at the same time, people should come here legally. They should be here legally.

... but he slipped right back into his standard immigration lines, and then he launched back into his favorite subject, how he's doing in the polls:

And I think the reason I’m doing, that I will do well, especially once I get started, don’t forget I haven’t even focused on Hillary yet. And, and as you know, you know I’ve had polls that are against me, but I’ve had many polls that say I’d beat Hillary, but they’re not that, that, they don’t mean anything now because it’s too early. Because I haven’t hit her. I’ve only hit her once, and that was eight weeks ago, but, I haven’t started on Hillary yet, and when I do I think I’ll be able to make my points.

Then he remembered the question and offered his stock over-the-top boast:

I mean, you know, but, but I think that just to try and answer your question: Uh, I am the least racist person that you will ever meet. Okay. That I can tell you.

Attiah retreated into a stock reporter-to-Trump message: "But do you feel that your messages, your rhetoric, are dangerous and divisive for this country?" He answered by only talking about Muslims and, essentially, arguing that it's important to say these things that people are trying to suppress as too dangerous and divisive:

I don’t think so. No, I don’t think so. With the Muslim thing I think it’s a serious problem. I’ve had Muslims call and tell me you’re right with the Muslim thing, I think it’s a serious problem. And it’s a problem that has to be addressed. I mean, there’s tremendous hatred. Even the, even the guy they caught in Paris. He was being hid out by other Muslims, and everybody is after him, and he’s living right next to where he grew up. There’s a serious, serious problem with the Muslims and it’s got to be addressed. It’s temporary, and it’s got to be addressed. And you know you may think of it as negative. Many people think it’s very positive.

* You may not notice all the positivity in Trump's choice of words. Think about that "I’ll tell you one thing, this is a very good looking group of people here. Could I just go around so I know who the hell I’m talking to?" Let me paraphrase it with equal exuberance and casualness but less social lubrication: Hey, what's wrong with you people? You never introduced yourself! I'm seeing lots faces here, but I've got no names.

Ok, you aren't beautiful. I said that to make you feel good, sort of like saying have a great day. But you are such a cunt you cannot take a compliment and would prefer to turn it into a "news" story about your own fucking feelings.

Since Trump is not afraid to bring up Bill's history of sexual harassment (at least) of women and Hillary's enablement of it to counter the "sisterhood uber alles" and "Trump is a sexist" tactics Hillary will use, they have to tar him with the same brush. Trump, you see, is a dirty old man attempting to prey on the young and vulnerable, like those poor naive reporters at the Washington Post. Fresh off the turnip trump they are.

OK, I looked for her image via google, and she is pretty attractive. However, considering that Trump marries super models and owns a modeling agency, I find the proposition that he "hit on her" highly unlikely.

The truth is, he didn't answer the question and his interaction with her shows that he knew it.

I would love to hear what he said when he saw what she wrote about him. Maybe he'll talk about it. If so, what I expect to hear is:

I said “I really hope I answered your question" and she smiled very nicely and nodded. I said "beautiful." That's the way people talk. Someone tells you they got what you were saying, so you and I are on the same page, and I say "beautiful." Because I love getting to agreement. It's the art of the deal. You talk. I talk. We come together. Beautiful!

Confirms rush's axiom that progressives are the most dour, unhappy people on the planet, what with marinating in perceived grievance 24/7. Oh, the comic absurdity of a culture that seeks safe spaces from words like "beautiful" and "all lives matter." No wonder trump is the front runner...we love the long lance aimed at the hypnotised oxen, don't we?

Anyway, if she really believes that he hit on her then it further confirms my observation that the highly credentialed upper-class twits that run this country are the most provincial "cosmopolitans" the universe has ever seen.

The whole premise is stupid but even if you take everything she suggests at face value should your conclusion be Trump won't be a uniting president? Clearly he's brilliant at multi-tasking, capable of harassing some women and assaulting others while funding and financing his own campaign and driving companies into the ground with his complete incompetence. If anything doesn't he unite every disparate group of aggrieved Trump haters?

As much as I loathe him, having checked out her photo, I think The Donald was on the money there. It must be shocking for people of a certain milieu to learn that the real world is not playing by the speech norms enforced at universities or by lefty corporate lawyers.

That's my point about how there's a lot of conversation that flows out of these dust-ups and those who start these things can't control where they go.

Want to talk about Trump maybe complimenting a woman, calling her beautiful? Want to talk about whether calling a woman beautiful is hitting on her? Well, remember the words (and gestures) Bill Clinton used to hit on Paula Jones?

"You have to be careful to, first of all, say she is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough, and she is exactly what you'd want in anybody who is administering the law, and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake. She also happens to be by far the best-looking attorney general in the country."

He apologized only to Harris (not to all the other attorneys general) and only for the "distraction."

The truth is, he didn't answer the question and his interaction with her shows that he knew it.

True, but the point of the question was to provide fodder for the "Trump is a racist" narrative.

The assumption is that any deviance from PC is, by definition, racist. I would have stated that Hispanics in the country are even more in danger from illegal M13 gang members than the rest of us and that illegal immigration suppresses everyones wages, black, brown, and white. Also, that we know that ISIS is using the migrant crisis to infiltrate terrorists into western nations.

And then everything I said would be selectively edited to make me look like a racist, because in their minds, I am and what I just said proves it.

Better to avoid the question and reduce there ammunition since I can by pass them and speak to people directly since their power as gatekeepers is being steadily eroded.

Karen is black. Or blackish. And--dare I say it--beautiful. Indeed she posts many pictures of her beautiful self (tasteful not provocative but beautiful nevertheless.)

Here is her bio from her own (more or less dormant) blog:

"Karen Attiah is a Ghanaian-American freelance journalist currently residing in Willemstad, Curacao. She is a freelance writer for the Associated Press. She has written for Huffington Post, The Haitian Times, Columbia University’s Morningside Post, Sahara Reporters and America.gov among other sites. She has also done multimedia stories for Voice of America and America Abroad Media.

Karen writes frequently about the Caribbean, West Africa, international political development, race, culture, and the role of both new media and traditional journalism in developing countries. As the daughter of Ghanaian immigrants, she also holds interests in examining the role of diaspora communities.

Karen has made appearances on MTV Base, WBAI 99.5 FM and Al Jazeera’s The Stream.

Karen holds a Master’s Degree of International Affairs from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, where she studied Human Rights and International Media. She was a Fulbright Scholar to Ghana in 2008. Karen graduated from Northwestern University with a Bachelor’s in Communication Studies. She is proud to call Dallas, Texas her hometown."

haha.. this reminds me of: I was at a conference and still in my final year and went up to a guy whose research I was very familiar with (and he had published one of my papers in his journal) and introduced myself and asked him to be a reference for me and he agreed by saying, 'how can I say no to a beautiful woman' -- something to that effect. And of course, I blurted out that he could not say things like that. And don't remember his reaction but it was cordial and he did give me great reference. I have another incident where I didn't like the guy's attention and to make matters worse we were alone. Both were European and European men tend to do things like that a lot.

Here, I agree with Althouse. We don't know what Trump was referring to. And I want to see a pic of that reporter.

Trump has been hanging around with a lot of downscale whites lately. He's picked up a bad habit or two. That kind of shit rubs off. It could have been a lot worse. The lovely and gracious Ms. Attiah should just feel lucky she didn't have to see Trump start picking up the litter people left in the meeting room and putting it the waste basket.

"I am the least racist person that you will ever meet." And maybe he's also the most humblest?

Nonetheless, it's remarkable how easily he seems to flummox these high-level journalists. Or perhaps not, perhaps it's just not that hard when they're just so dull and uncreative when they stubbornly, humorlessly, ceaselessly keep pushing, pushing, pushing their own political agendas?

When you know those who are questioning you already have all the answers, why bother answering their questions?

"True, but the point of the question was to provide fodder for the "Trump is a racist" narrative."

So answer the question by upending that narrative--e.g., "the main reason I'm so divisive is because too many people are threatened by change. But I'm going to change things for the better for all Americans, of all races."

When someone repeatedly hides from questions it suggests they have no answer to it. And the premise--that Trump is seen by a large number of people as a bigot--isn't itself flawed. It's a fact, and one he should be able to have an answer for. That answer could be "who cares what they think?" or it can be "I hope to change their minds". But to say "hey look, a distraction!" makes him look reality challenged.

She should have known. When Mr. Donald J. Trump calls you "beautiful," it doesn't mean much. According to Trump, Utah is "beautiful," Detroit is "beautiful," and the little guys in yarmulkes who count his money are "beautiful."

When Mr. Donald J. Trump is hitting on you, you will be called "a beautiful piece of ass." On the second or third "date," you may be referred to as a "world class piece of ass."

So let's please not let Mr. Donald J. Trump come in for any unfair charges of sexism.

Complimenting a woman you don't know in a professional setting is basically word-rape. If she hasn't filed a complaint already she needs to get on it now. This is why so many women drop out of journalism, you know, the incessant harassment and degradation they're forced to endure. There really ought to be a law.I'll bet Hillary wouldn't put up with some MAN calling her beautiful.

I saw a "news story" yesterday showing an ad Republican establishment-types are running in Utah to try to stop Trump--it was a picture of his current wife writhing on what looked like a fur rug, nude, with the caption "is this who you want as first lady?"

I mean, I get that Utah is chock full o' Mormons but even so that seemed like a pretty terrible ad! I mean, if the immediate answer is "YES!" and the ad's supposed to make you think "no" then it's something worse than a failure, really.

There is no upending the narrative. The fact that some people see Trump as a bigot is a given due to:

1) He is white2) He is running as a Republican3) He has said unkind things about Obama4) He has said unkind things about Hillary5) He has made statements contrary to PC that, nevertheless, accurately reflect reality

He is a bigot by definition. So are you for that matter, as am I. Hemming and hawing about how you are not a bigot is a loser's game. You are playing your opponents game. Trump prefers to upend the game board, which is why so many people in power are so threatened by him.

Was he really calling HER beautiful? It sounds to me like he was saying it was "beautiful" that he answered her question, or that she was satisfied with his bullshit non-answer, or at least that he got away with it.

It sounds like the reporter failed to get anything interesting out of Trump while some of her colleagues did. The "beautiful" comment probably reinforced her professional shortfall that day.

I listened to the interview last night, and I thought Trump mostly came across vague and unserious. I actually wondered how Althouse was going to spin the interview in a positive way. I woke up to this post and chuckled.

Here's an example of what I mean:

RYAN: But how would you fix that? You’ve said that you would open up the libel laws.

TRUMP: What I would do, what I would do is I’d – well right now the libel laws, I mean I must tell you that the Hulk Hogan thing was a tremendous shock to me because – not only the amount and the fact that he had the victory — because for the most part I think libel laws almost don’t exist in this country, you know, based on, based on everything I’ve seen and watched and everything else, and I just think that if a paper writes something wrong — media, when I say paper I’m talking about media. I think that they can do a retraction if they’re wrong. They should at least try to get it right. And if they don’t do a retraction, they should, they should you know have a form of a trial.

. . .

RYAN: But there’s standards like malice is required. Would you weaken that? Would you require less than malice for news organizations?

TRUMP: I would make it so that when someone writes incorrectly, yeah, I think I would get a little bit away from malice without having to get too totally away.

. . .

HIATT: But just – given the Supreme Court rulings on libel — Sullivan v. New York Times — how would you change the law?

TRUMP: I would just loosen them up.

RUTH MARCUS: What does that mean?

[Crosstalk]

TRUMP: I’d have to get my lawyers in to tell you, but I would loosen them up. I would loosen them up. If The Washington Post writes badly about me – and they do, they don’t write good – I mean, I don’t think I get – I read some of the stories coming up here, and I said to my staff, I said, “Why are we even wasting our time? The hatred is so enormous.” I don’t know why. I mean, I do a good job. I have thousands of employees. I work hard.

Was he really calling HER beautiful? It sounds to me like he was saying it was "beautiful" that he answered her question, or that she was satisfied with his bullshit non-answer, or at least that he got away with it.

Its the narcissism engendered by the self-esteem cult in American education. It's all about her.

Well, what could Trump do about the libel laws? He can't just decree they be adjusted to his whim, he would have to work with congress on changing the law, changes that would have to conform to the first amendment. I personally favor keeping the libel and slander laws as are since you can see them being used to stifle political speech in England where they lack the protections for free speech that we enjoy.

But the chances of Trump actually being able to get them changed are so minute that I just don't worry about it. I worry about whether or not he will or can enforce the immigration laws as he promised.

When that's the case, I have no objection--I applaud that. It's where he makes statements with no basis in reality that I have a problem. "Politically incorrect" is fine. "Just plain incorrect" is not.

"I listened to the interview last night, and I thought Trump mostly came across vague and unserious. I actually wondered how Althouse was going to spin the interview in a positive way. I woke up to this post and chuckled."

I thought he spent a disturbing amount of time talking about the size of his hands. There's something very weird going on in his head, in that he's obsessed with the idea that anyone would think his hands are small. He may be suffering some mental illness. I'm not making fun of him (for that at least) because he might really have some serious problem.

"Was he really calling HER beautiful? It sounds to me like he was saying it was "beautiful" that he answered her question, or that she was satisfied with his bullshit non-answer, or at least that he got away with it."

That's my take. I've never seen anyone hit on someone by simply saying "beautiful". Maybe "you're beautiful" (and even then it might be just a trite compliment) but just "beautiful"? By suggesting this was a pass she comes across pretty self-obsessed.

"But the chances of Trump actually being able to get them changed are so minute that I just don't worry about it. I worry about whether or not he will or can enforce the immigration laws as he promised."

It's not that I think he can actually achieve half the things he claims he wants to (that is, until he does a 180 a day later). It's that there's an authoritarian impulse behind a lot of this and in a country where a lot of people seem to be fine with upending the rule of law and limited government as long as it advances their own agendas, that's a dangerous thing in a commander in chief.

Perceiving a woman as an impressionistic artwork is softcore pornography.

Perceiving a woman as a taxable commodity, activist puppet, womb bank, assembly of parts, or clump of cells is hardcore pornography.

The female chauvinists prefer to mold other women as the latter rather than the former, fomenting gender dysphoria and dysfunctional human relationships. Mother Nature seemed to tolerate male chauvinism better than female chauvinism, but both are equally undesirable in a mature, civilized, functional population.

It's not that I think he can actually achieve half the things he claims he wants to (that is, until he does a 180 a day later). It's that there's an authoritarian impulse behind a lot of this and in a country where a lot of people seem to be fine with upending the rule of law and limited government as long as it advances their own agendas, that's a dangerous thing in a commander in chief.

I understand that. But the fact is the rule of law and limited government has been upended for a long time and playing nice does not seem to be working to restore it. The MSM assures everyone that felonies committed by Democrats are inconsequential while Democrats indict Republicans for doing their jobs and launch secret investigations that would have had the Bolsheviks gasping in admiration and everything goes on while VA officials invade a Memorial Day celebration to assure everyone they are really, really going to change and we can trust them now, and then you see a few months later that people who should be in prison are getting restored to their high paying jobs (that actual veterans can't get.)

Why Trump is ahead:Trump wants to show up "the enormous hatred" the WaPo feels. Reporter obliges - 'He just said "beautiful" to me, a woman'. Lawsuit. Story. Coverage for reporter. But the real point is that SHE LIVES IN A WORLD WHERE IT MAKES SENSE TO DO THIS. So the real point is coverage for Trump on WaPo-hatred-PC-mania in DC.

I mean has Bill Clinton stopped hitting on women? What is the WaPo covering up in that direction? What did he do in Haiti? Why was he always flying off to the special US island of underage girls run by his pimp friend? Why isn't this reporter covering that?

beautiful to trump is when people make positive statements about him. Ugly is when they don't. But he also could have been describing the fact that the interview went well. in other words, it was not antagonistic. Beautiful!At least he didnt call her sugar tits.

But you know what? Sometimes when I go out to a restaurant the waitress says "What can I get for you sweetie (or darling)?Because, I am a sweetie.But, unlike some I don't take it as an insult. Its in fact a way to be ingratiating.

"But the fact is the rule of law and limited government has been upended for a long time and playing nice does not seem to be working to restore it."

I'm under no illusion playing nice will restore it, but rather than a tough, shrewd campaigner fighting for those ideals we're now getting a choice between two people who oppose them. It doesn't bode well.

This is so tired by now, you females. Keep this crap up and we'll make you keep the toilet seats up under the laws of the Pax Trumpanica. She's probably too young to know any better, but in the next year or two, she'll know better.

No disrespect to the reporter, but Trump wasn't hitting on her. A serious politician might have given her a respectful nod as he left the room, but Trump is one of those people who can't stand a moment of silence. That is why he throws out the big adjectives with exclamation points all the time. One of his people probably should explain this to him.

A real woman would have taken the opportunity to pigeonhole Trump on a serious issue, like perhaps his policy on free tampons for all. That would make for a more substantial column.

By the way, can we just say now, knowing/seeing the full context, that she's lying? I mean, sure, she gets to interpret what she feels and given our current mores she of course has "a right to be beleived," but objectively it's clear Trump wasn't hitting on her. I mean, like the guy or not, he wasn't hitting on her. Right? Can we all agree?

Ok, assuming we do, she lied. She's a liar. Her job is to uncover facts and present them to the public, and she's a liar. Her lie is self-serving (bringing her the attention she's trying to get and advancing the storyline/position she wants to advance) and so she can't be trusted.

Reading her post now--someone calls her "beautiful" and she was so stunned she had to sit in a conference room for "several minutes" so it can sink in? This is a tough-nosed "female journalist?"

Yeah, women should definitely be combat infantry soldiers, they're just as strong and tough as men. Fuck, are you happy with the current crop of feminism-fed weak women who get the vapors at the slightest confrontation (real or imagined), Professor Althouse? Isn't this crop of shrinking violets (who nevertheless are all too ready to join a mob to take down some target of the Left!) grown under the care and direction of your generation of glass ceiling-breaking, ass-kicking, patriarchy-smashing feminists? How the hell did that happen?

Can you imagine a professional woman from, say, 15 years ago being that stunned by something so innocuous? Being so thrown by a casual statement? What the hell happened to all that "Grrl Power" claptrap I used to hear all the damn time?

And she not only felt/experienced those things, she decided to TELL EVERYONE ABOUT IT? She's proud of her ridiculous weakness! Pathetic.

A. This reporter has never been actually hit on.B. We know that isn't true, because most women reporters in both print and TV are complete mattress backs when they start their careers. It's how they get ahead and fight loneliness while on assignment.

Reminds me of a woman. I'm walking out of a restaurant, she's walking by with Double-Ds bouncing under a white t-shirt so cheap its almost transparent. Like a thread count of 10. You can count the little bumps in the areola surrounding her tits. So of course I checked her out.

Having a Masters degree from Columbia is a big red flag for me. The person I know who has one is incredibly ignorant. Just today, in a conversation about landscaping, she didn't know what "sod" was. She reveals this kind of ignorance almost every time I am around her--and it's not just about landscaping.

All the hand talk is to reinforce that The Donald is busy, very busy, maybe the busiest guy in the world okay, ergo you'll find no devil's nor their damn working playgrounds near Trump. None. None whatsoever.

'Cept Jersey exit 16, but that really isn't near Donald. Not really, if you look at some closer places.

Literal baby killers, allowing for a certain timeframe and considering the funding, claim to be "for the children" so why shouldn't everyone bullshit as harmful as their ability allows in hopes of stirring a new guarantee regarding the Big Lie?

Could be a big payday for them, and the only way to fail is to refrain from trying (cf. Man In The Arena).

There is nothing worse, nothing, than saying nothing when you have a punter's chance to speak given the will to make an attempt.

So, Trump murdered this woman's potential future livelihood and must pay up according to His* rules. *Not God, Trump.

Just stop defending the indefensible. Trump is a con artist. I don't know whether he hit on her or not. You people have the common sense to know that being hit on is as much about body language as it is about words. I think he probably did hit on her. But knock yourself out trying to prove he didn't, I still think Trump is the worst possible candidate because he is entirely mendacious. You who think Trump loves you and loves America and wants to help you win -- you are being taken for a ride by a disgusting fake.

Remember when conservatives laughed at those credulous people who thought Obama was going to pay their bills for them? Yeah, that was fun. Good times.

John Stodder said...Just stop defending the indefensible. Trump is a con artist. I don't know whether he hit on her or not. You people have the common sense to know that being hit on is as much about body language as it is about words. I think he probably did hit on her. But knock yourself out trying to prove he didn't, I still think Trump is the worst possible candidate because he is entirely mendacious. You who think Trump loves you and loves America and wants to help you win -- you are being taken for a ride by a disgusting fake.

Lots of conflation goin' on there, John S. What body language would you say could turn Trump's (recorded) words into "hitting on" the reporter? Do you think he made a gesture towards his genitals as he said it and she just forgot to mention that part? Look, I'm not a Trump fan and I understand why people describe him as a con artist. I'm willing to believe that he loves America but I agree that he's a bad choice to be President. None of that means he was hitting on this reporter, though. He pretty clearly wasn't. Even starting from a position of doubting everything Trump says and does (using the old Don King standard of "after you shake his hand count your fingers) he wasn't "hitting on" her. Being unprofessional, being sexist, being inappropriate and/or condescending--you could argue all of those, sure. But "hitting on?" No, he wasn't.